The weekend was not only full of surprises from the Conservatives. The arrest of Nicola Sturgeon added further twists.
I am not commenting on issues under inquiry, of course. Nor am I discussing the odd timing of the arrest. And I am certainly not speculating on any issue of right or wrong: there is a judicial process to do that.
I do, however, think it possible to note one thing, and that is that the structure of the political party in the UK (and in this sense, the SNP is entirely consistent with the pattern of UK political parties) is failing us very badly.
The idea that in the UK political system, we should suffer politics run by an individual who has managed to take power within a political party without that power then being capable of successful challenge either within or without that party is deeply worrying. It leaves us with a series of quasi-monarchs to choose from when making an electioral choice.
The Tories have been supremely good at this. We got Johnson as a result and total turmoil in the attempt to be rid of him.
Keir Starmer is very obviously dedicated to this model of political power.
So too was Nicola Sturgeon, who, with a tiny coterie of others, controlled the SNP and ignored all other opinion within it, making themselves unaccountable in the process.
I have no idea how this might relate to any investigation into the SNP's affairs: that is not my concern. I am saying that this model is undoubtedly not working to our benefit. We need accountable politics within political parties as well as within our parliaments. We are not getting it.
No wonder people are alienated from politics. Those who reach its pinnacle appear determined to make sure that alienation happens by applying the idea to almost everyone in their own party, let alone those beyond it.
I hope that the day of this form of politics might be done.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The rot set in with Margaret Thatcher when with her question “Is he one of us?” she placed loyalty to the leader above all other considerations.
Once that becomes all that matters the belief that the ends always justify the means soon follows and the spiral downwards begins.
Sooner or later every principle and every institution will be thrown under the bus to try and keep the rotten show on the road until you are left with the kind of last-days-of-the-Roman-Empire mess in which we currently find ourselves.
Just a point of information, for your readers. In case you are not aware, in Scotland to ask someone questions about an alleged crime, the police need to arrest you first. There is no need for there to be any evidence that a crime had indeed been committed, or that the person arrested may have been involved.
That is very different from the rest of the UK. So a certain couple of UK Prime Ministers would have had to be arrested for thier COVID crimes to be pursued. So would the Cabinet sec. If Scots law applied in London.
So readers should not interpret events in Scotland as evidence that even a crime has even been committed. Rather that a serious allegation has been made against the government, and unlike in London, the full majesty of the law is seeking to ascertain the truth. We must wait for the crown office to give is decision.
Thank you.
In England (and probably Wales) the police MUST arrest a person who is being questioned, or about to be questioned, if they believe they have evidence to indicate that person may have committed a crime. A bit different from Scotland.
Weren’t several cabinet members and government employees rather grudgingly and belatedly issued with fixed penalty notices related to “Partygate”? Is it just me who sees that as a convenient way of avoiding arrests despite incontrovertible proof of lawbreaking was available from the start? The Tories have their press and tv news chums hide / minimise / trivialise their lawbreaking activities and the Met appear to ignore all the evidence until forced into action.
Nope, it’s not Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP that are “over powerful”
Maybe you could clarify Mark. My understanding is that in Scotland a Police Officer can question a suspect without arresting them. Caution them of course, and inform them of why they are being questioned, but not arrest them. Just asking.
Speaking to recently retired policeman yesterday here in Scotland I was told that the police do indeed need grounds to arrest somebody. It is not just a case of if they want to speak to somebody they have to arrest them first. They cannot arrest somebody to question them in order to aquire evidence – they have to have evidence prior to the arrest.
The example he used was that until recently if there was a break-in in the town and I had a record of house-breaking he could arrest me on that basis alone. Now, however, he would need to gather actual evidence, eg, I had actually been in the area, before arresting me for further questioning.
However, given the nature of the alleged crime(s) which N Sturgeon is alleged to be connected to – financial fraud – it can’t be too difficult to make a case that she may be involved. For instance, she was a signatory to the accounts – ie, she was in the area at the time of the offence.
Starmer has alienated a lot more today.
He has produced a video asking for more black leaders in politics and completely omitted to mention Diane Abbott. I know she has been suspended for the moment, and they are not in a hurry to resolve the situation, but she has been the longest standing black MP.
Rishi Sunak’s little speech on AI today tells you nothing has changed. Wide-eyed, unreflective, Britain is best, over-excited, look-after-London first; but relying on toe-curling, low-tech, child-like language (he really does make me fear he is an innocent abroad): we had ‘cutting-edge’ and even ‘holy-grail’ as he sprayed his enthusiasm to make the mistakes of the past, over and over again. It was an amazing insight into the thinking of neoliberal clone thinking that learns nothing from experience. It is saturated in ironies.
The biggest irony of all was his reference to Babbage’s letter of thanks to the PM of his day for support. Sunak described this as a lesson from history. He does not see that it is not a neoliberal lesson. It is a lesson that new, major technological change almost invariably relies on government support to flower. Capital doesn’t like risk, and avoids the big ones until someone opens the road.
Sunak also is quite wrong about the harmony his bland reference suggests. The Royal Society advised the Treasury to support Babbage, I think in 1822, but he had a difficult and fractious relationship with Sir Robert Peel, that cut both ways, it dragged on for years, and it didn’t end well. Not least for Babbage’s vision. Peter Turvey for an paper in the Royal Society journal (1991), wrote of Babbage dying “a disappointed and embittered man”. Note well; private capital did not step in and solve the problem with risk money. We lost the opportunity. But hey, Sunak can make a glossy story out of it to make a sales pitch for unvarnished AI. Just like that. Neoliberalism ,eh?
The more you scratch the surface of Sunak’s babbling the less convincing he becomes.
You are so right John. I thought Sunak sou did like a child with a new toy, which is compatible with how you have characterised him. And this is who is PM?
Absolutely. A weak, pathetic little man who reappointed Braverman as Home Secretary just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code becuase he is not prepared to stand up to the lunatic right.
Rish! indeed.
I lost internet connection so I am not sure if my comment got through.
An essential part of the debate is the wider issue of funding- the role and extent of state aid, limits on donations, foreign donations and the auditing.
Allied to this is the role of billionaire owned media -see Daily Mail today on Boris ‘The nation has lost a transformative genius whose like we won’t see again” -pass me a bucket!
Yep very apt comment. Changing the unbalanced outlook has to start with parenting and be reinforced at school. Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” needs to be taught but in the context of the challenge to ameliorate its worst effects.
Having been involved with/running various projects there is always a tendancy or temptation to rule with an iron fist in order to preserve the vision/goals of the project. The big problem is that you loose all the collaborative elements. When issues and snags come up you’ve lost a lot of your problem solving ability. There is always at least one loud voice that disagrees with everything but they do add flavour. Quite frankly if you have risen to party leader or project manager and can’t deal with those voices without resorting to authoritarianism/censorship a new carrier might be the best option.
When I worked on projects in Industry that often took years to come to fruition, at the outset we spent much time getting a consensus as to what the objectives of the project were and then writing them down in a document that was open to everybody.
It was a useful corrective against mission creep but most importantly it meant that the purpose of the project could not be changed, reinterpreted or deliberately forgotten in order to gain advantage in organisational political infighting.
At the end of the project It also provided an extremely useful list against which to measure success or failure and learn genuine lessons.
I would love to see such an assessment of the initial claims of Neo-liberalism.
All that Industry that was going to be so much more successful, all those public services that were going to be more responsive, more efficient and cheaper, all those ways in which Britain would become a much more successful nation.
What an accounting it would be,
Indeed
This is why we need a voting system that puts voters in control. See https://moneyversusdemocracy.wordpress.com/2023/06/10/time-to-put-voters-in-control/
The only way we MIGHT get it is if we get a hung parliament and Starmer caves in to the Lib Dems – a very long shot
The problem is the emotion of power itself and its connection to both control and personal security. At its extreme we have Trumpian embodiment, “I am the state”, and the attendant gross insecurities inherent in this personalisation – classic Freudian narcissism with the veneer of control and the void within that is defended with aggression. Johnson has most of the symptoms, Starmer increasingly seems to exhibit similar traits, although how much is primed by other agents (e.g. funders, foreign actors) is moot. When they ascend the ladder, they don’t pull it up, but ossify the structure in their image so challenge becomes impossible.
We are faced with that in Labour far more than the other parties – the downgrading of Conference and the powers of the membership, and the introduction of apparatchiks in key positions by diktat. Even the Tories are subject to the whims of their local parties!
Once this type of system is in place, and in Labour’s case it has always existed in lesser form, alienation is institutionalised. FPTP ensures that alternatives may not arise easily.
Is it possible to create a more inclusive system? Or are we faced with the growing alternative, the even greater expansion of the ‘strong leader’?
What strikes me on the all powerful leader model is the ruling political party’s ability to cleanse itself of any or all responsibility of their Government’s actions – by as one might say ‘relieving themselves’. Hence why we are at this point.
The next leader claims its nothing to do with me.
All power to the leader is undemocratic and has led to increased inequality, the fundamental problem of neoliberalism.
I have in my head an image – of a British Bayeux Tapestry of Tory leaders since 2010, smirking and irking in their gold braided gowns, with a background of peoples social dislocations. Of course the real Bayeux Tapestry records the conquest of England by the Normans; mine records the disaster of Neoliberal England, also inflicted on Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Your tapestry idea is great.
Perhaps we should commission it and have it tour the four nations, Europe and the world? School children could learn a lot from an outing to see the work then completing a school project on the subjects within.
All too true I’m afraid.
Leadership………………….I used to have a lot to say about it but don’t know what to say about it anymore. It has far too many negative connotations for me.
One thing I have learnt about modern leadership is that there is no comparison between the effort expended to get to the top and the effort expended once you get there. That is why a lot of companies and institutions are badly led I feel.
Is that, perhaps, because the skills and abilities needed to get to the top are very, very different from the skills and abilities needed to lead properly?
I bet one party leader felt sick yesterday hearing Suella Braverman say this about her.
“Caroline Lucas spoke with characteristic alarmism, if I may say so. We have become accustomed to her doom-mongering over the years, and I will actually miss it when she leaves this House. Let me take this opportunity to thank her for her years of hard work for her constituents and for the causes about which she is so evidently passionate.”
That was in the debate about the public order bill. Like being thanked by a snake before it crushes you.
I am quite sure Caroline was indifferent to that
You have to respect someone for their criticism to matter.
You have to respect someone for their criticism to matter.
Brilliant!
Spot on Richard. Is there actually any point at all in even listening to anything Braverman or her ilk say?
Unfortunately Caroline had to listen to it and hear it as there were so few MPs in the chamber at the time. It was an important debate, the tories passing the public order bill, the one which labour in the lords have let through by abstaining.
I’ve been saying for ages that I wouldn’t give tories a capital letter as they don’t deserve it. Now the only party I can do that with is the Green Party. Bad for an ex-English teacher.
Just been reading that Johnson, Dorries and Rees-Mogg are likely to start their own party. I wonder if Braverman will join them.